Nearmap US, Inc. v. EagleView Technologies, Inc.

I'll research this case across the docket, PTAB records, and legal press before drafting.

Good start. Now let me dig into the parallel district court case, the related IPRs, and the corporate backgrounds.

Case Overview and Background

A note on posture first, because the caption is misleading. IPR2022-01009 is not the infringement suit; it is the validity challenge that grew out of it. The underlying infringement litigation is Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. v. Nearmap US, Inc., Nearmap Australia Pty Ltd, and Nearmap Ltd/Pty Ltd, No. 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO (D. Utah, Central Div., filed May 4, 2021). In the district court EagleView was the plaintiff and Nearmap the defendant; the roles are inverted in the PTAB caption because Nearmap was the IPR petitioner. So the "plaintiff/defendant" labels in the case metadata reflect the PTAB framing, not the litigation.

The parties are two operating competitors, not NPEs. EagleView (with its subsidiary Pictometry International) is the incumbent U.S. aerial-imagery and property-analytics company — founded 2008 in Bothell, WA, merged with Rochester, NY–based Pictometry in 2013, acquired by Vista Equity Partners in 2015, and reportedly subject to additional Clearlake Capital investment in 2018 (EagleView press release; Wikipedia). Its business is oblique/orthogonal imagery capture, 3D roof modeling, and measurement reports sold to insurers, roofing contractors, solar installers, and government assessors. Notably, Verisk's $650 million deal to buy EagleView collapsed in late 2014 after the FTC threatened to challenge it as creating a monopoly in aerial rooftop measurement for insurance claims (GeekWire) — useful context for both the market concentration and the "practicing entity" status that EagleView later leveraged as objective evidence of nonobviousness. Nearmap US, Inc. is the U.S. arm of Australia's Nearmap Ltd (ASX-listed at the time), a subscription aerial-imagery provider with U.S. headquarters in Utah; Nearmap was later taken private by Thoma Bravo in a 2022 scheme of arrangement (I did not verify the deal value or closing date in this session, so treat the specifics as reported rather than confirmed here). Because both sides make and sell the accused/accusing technology, this is a competitor-versus-competitor case — which is why EagleView's commercial success and industry praise became a live issue in the parallel PTAB proceedings.

Accused technology, asserted patents, and venue. EagleView's amended complaint (filed March 28, 2023) identified four accused categories: (1) Nearmap on OpenSolar, the integration of Nearmap imagery into the OpenSolar solar-design platform; (2) Nearmap MapBrowser, Nearmap's core imagery/measurement platform; (3) the "Roof Geometry" technology Nearmap acquired from Primitive LLC d/b/a Pushpin, plus associated software; and (4) other Nearmap products with "similar functionality" (Doc. 298, D. Utah, May 18, 2023; Doc. 447). The scope of "accused products" was itself litigated — Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg denied EagleView's motion to compel discovery on unidentified "similar functionality" products as inconsistent with the District of Utah's Local Patent Rules, while Nearmap's interrogatory responses named MapBrowser, Nearmap on OpenSolar, and additional products including Nearmap Vertical, Nearmap Oblique, Nearmap 3D and point-cloud roof geometry. Eight patents were pleaded as asserted: US 8,670,961 and US 8,078,436 (both "Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods," sharing a specification — the two patents litigated in the IPRs; the '961 claims a computing system with a calibration-enabled roof estimation module that receives multiple independently-taken aerial images including a top plan view and an oblique perspective view and generates an annotated roof report), plus US 8,542,880, US 8,593,518, US 8,209,152, US 9,135,737, US 10,528,960, and US 10,685,149, which collectively cover oblique-image capture/geolocation, feature extraction from multi-angle aerial imagery, 3D building reconstruction, and roof-model user interfaces (PatSnap litigation summary). By the time of the court's March 2025 claim construction order, the court referred to "the 13 asserted patents at issue in this case," indicating the asserted set grew during the case; I could not confirm from the sources retrieved which patents were added (Doc. 463). On venue: the case landed in the District of Utah, Central Division before District Judge Ted Stewart (with Judge Oberg handling nondispositive pretrial matters) — Nearmap US's home district, which foreclosed any real §1404/§1406 transfer fight and subjected the parties to Utah's Local Patent Rules (e.g., LPR 2.3/3.1 limiting accused products and prior art references per patent, LPR 4.5 technology tutorial). D. Utah is not a top-tier patent venue, so the choice reads as targeting Nearmap's U.S. operations; EagleView also filed a parallel GAF Materials case in D. Utah (2:22-cv-00215) and D.N.J. (1:21-cv-10669), per the '961 institution decision (IPR2022-01009 institution decision).

Why it matters. The case is a clean illustration of IPR-as-stay-lever dynamics plus a rare public look at how secondary considerations cut both ways. Nearmap filed a coordinated 2022 IPR campaign against EagleView's asserted portfolio, built on a common three-reference combination (Littleworth's analytical photogrammetry article, Linder's Digital Photogrammetry, and Middlebrook's AutoCAD 2005 for Dummies). The Board invalidated the challenged claims of the '961 patent (FWD Dec. 14, 2023) and the '436 patent (IPR2022-01090, FWD Jan. 9, 2024), and the Federal Circuit affirmed both in a single nonprecedential opinion, Eagle View Techs., Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 24-1488 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2026) (Judge Chen), holding that "calculate a pitch"/"determining a pitch" carry no accuracy requirement and that substantial evidence supported the obviousness findings (CAFC opinion posting; IPWatchdog; Fed. Cir. Blog). That outcome drove Judge Stewart's August 25, 2025 order staying all proceedings and administratively closing the case pending the PTO and Federal Circuit proceedings — freezing a four-year-old case at the claim-construction stage, after a three-hour hearing on eight disputed terms (including "roof report," "aerial image(s)," "oblique image(s)," "calibrating," "3D model," and "taken independent of each other") had been set for May 7, 2025. The result was not uniformly favorable to Nearmap, which is what makes the story balanced: the PTAB denied institution on EagleView's US 10,671,648 (Oct. 9, 2024) and US 9,182,657 (Oct. 10, 2024) (Haynes Boone press release), and the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 judgment affirming the Board in Nearmap US, Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp., No. 24-1763, on the same day as the '961/'436 affirmance. Most strikingly, in a separate IPR directed to an EagleView roof-model user-interface patent, the Board initially held the claims not unpatentable because EagleView's objective indicia (commercial success, industry praise) were "decisive"; the USPTO Director granted review and vacated/remanded on June 18, 2024 for failure to actually resolve the claim construction dispute and to conduct a full Graham-factor analysis, and on remand the Board found the claims unpatentable (July 17, 2024) (Lexology/At the PTAB; Law360). Finally, the practical significance for the geospatial industry is that the dispute never produced a merits ruling: after the stay, the parties settled on May 27–29, 2026 on confidential terms, resolving "all pending disputes between the companies" (PRNewswire via ADVFN; Law360). The net effect: two of EagleView's asserted patents were cancelled with Federal Circuit affirmance, its broader portfolio claims were resolved privately, and the answer to any competitor's freedom-to-operate question against EagleView's aerial-measurement family shifted to a source other than the courts.

Sourcing caveats. I did not access PACER directly in this session; docket details above come from CourtListener/Justia/Docket Alarm recaps, third-party litigation aggregators (PatSnap), and law-firm/press releases. Specifically unverified here: the exact asserted-patent count and the identity of the patents added to reach "13"; the titles/subject matter of the non-'961/'436 asserted patents (drawn from secondary databases and should be checked against USPTO records); the Nearmap/Thoma Bravo transaction terms; the identity of the specific patent at issue in the Director-review IPR; and the full PTAB panel compositions. Counsel of record at the Federal Circuit were Debra Janece McComas (Haynes and Boone) for EagleView and Lauren Ann Degnan (Fish & Richardson) for Nearmap (VitalLaw); district court teams reportedly included Gibson Dunn, Kirkland & Ellis, Wilson Sonsini, and Parsons Behle for EagleView and Fish & Richardson, Paul Weiss, and Groombridge Wu for Nearmap, but I could not verify those rosters against PACER.

I'll research this case. Note upfront: the authoritative case metadata identifies the core proceeding as PTAB IPR2022-01009 (not a district court case), so I'll cover the IPR plus the parallel district court litigation and any other IPRs on the asserted patents.

Good — I now have the core IPR and the parallel district court case identified. Let me dig into the litigation docket, claim construction, and the full set of parallel PTAB proceedings.

Now let me pin down the district court docket specifics: answer/counterclaims, venue/transfer motions, stay motions, summary judgment, and the settlement.

Threshold point on the "case"

The authoritative metadata here describes PTAB IPR2022-01009, not a district court action. The infringement litigation that the IPR was designed to feed into is a separate (but parallel) docket:

• Eagle View Technologies, Inc. & Pictometry International Corp. v. Nearmap US, Inc.; Nearmap Australia Pty Ltd; Nearmap Ltd, No. 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO (D. Utah, Judge Ted Stewart; Mag. J. Daphne A. Oberg), filed 2021-05-04, administratively closed/stayed ~2025-08-25, settled 2026-05-28/29.
• Related case: Eagle View Techs. v. GAF Materials LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00215 (D. Utah), transferred from D.N.J. (1:21-cv-10669) on 2022-03-28 — the same patents were asserted against GAF, which is why Markman proceedings were proposed for consolidation.

Everything below is organized chronologically, with the PTAB track flagged separately. Where a fact comes from a secondary/machine-generated summary rather than an opinion or docket PDF, I say so.

---

Part I — District court (D. Utah No. 2:21-cv-00283)

2021-05-04 — Complaint. EagleView (with Pictometry) sued Nearmap in D. Utah, the same day it sued GAF in D.N.J. The original complaint asserted eight patents on rooftop aerial measurement and identified Nearmap on OpenSolar and MapBrowser as accused products. (Dkt. 298 at 3; Dkt. 267 at 2; asserted patents per Dkt. 465 include US 10,528,960 ('960), 9,514,568 ('568), 8,670,961 ('961), 8,542,880 ('880), 9,135,737 ('737), 8,209,152 ('152).)

2021-11-15 — Rule 12(b)(6) motion denied (Dkt. 50). Nearmap moved to dismiss the '152 and '737 claims as patent-ineligible under § 101. Judge Stewart denied the motion, holding the representative claims recite specific computerized inputs/outputs achieving specific goals in roof modeling and are analogous to the McRO line rather than to an abstract idea. First substantive loss for Nearmap.
https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/2:2021cv00283/[125462](/patent/125462)/50/0.pdf

2021-11-29 — Answer (and counterclaims). Per Dkt. 267, Nearmap filed its initial Answer on that date. The order at Dkt. 267 is captioned "granting Defendant's motion for leave to file First Amended Answer and Counterclaims," confirming that counterclaims existed; the sources I reviewed do not itemize them, but the amended pleading added a patent misuse defense/counterclaim (see 2023-03-14 below). I could not independently verify the exact counterclaim counts — treat the DJ non-infringement/invalidity characterization as standard practice rather than a confirmed docket fact.

2022-03-28 — GAF transfer; consolidation denied. The D.N.J. GAF case was transferred to D. Utah (becoming 2:22-cv-00215). EagleView moved to consolidate the Nearmap and GAF cases for pretrial purposes; the court denied consolidation. (Dkt. 267 at 2; Dkt. 465.)

2022-03-21 and 2022-05-10 — Nearmap's IPR barrage begins. Law360's PTAB case page for Nearmap shows a petition filed 2022-03-21 (the IPR2022-007xx series) and the two petitions at issue here — IPR2022-01009 ('961) and IPR2022-01090 ('436) — filed 2022-05-10 (per the case metadata; the -010xx series is consistent with a May 2022 filing). See Part II.

2022-09-20 / 2022-11-09 — Competing motions for leave to amend. Nearmap moved (2022-09-20) to amend its answer to add a patent misuse defense; EagleView moved (2022-11-09) to amend the complaint, name GAF and the two foreign Nearmap entities as defendants, add new patent counts, and add trade-secret claims. The pleadings-amendment deadline was 2023-01-17. (Dkt. 267.)

2022-10-31 — Discovery hearing (partly sealed). Hearing on EagleView's short-form motion to compel Re: scope of accused products; the transcript portion addressing AEO material was closed to the public. (Dkt. 311.)

2023-01-13 — Close of the original fact-discovery period. (Dkt. 267: "the discovery period concluded on January 13, 2023.")

2023-03-14 — Dkt. 267 (pivotal pleading order). Court granted Nearmap leave to file its amended answer adding the patent misuse defense (premised on a non-public EagleView–Verisk settlement in which EagleView allegedly conditioned settlement on Verisk dropping competing unaccused products) and granted in part/denied in part EagleView's motion to amend — allowing new infringement counts (Counts 9–15) and trade-secret claims against Nearmap and adding Nearmap Australia Pty Ltd and Nearmap Ltd as defendants, but denying the addition of GAF to Counts 1–2 and 4–11. This is the point at which new patents ('648 and '657) and new accused products (CoreLogic "SkyMeasure," Pushpin/Roof Geometry technology) entered the case, and the patent count grew from 8 toward the 13 referenced in 2025.
https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/2:2021cv00283/[125462/267](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=125462-0267)/0.pdf

2023-03-28 — First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 274). Added Count 13 asserting US 10,671,648 ('648); accused products now included Nearmap on OpenSolar, MapBrowser, and the Pushpin-acquired roof geometry technology.

2023-05-18 — Dkt. 298: discovery motion denied. The court denied EagleView's motion to compel discovery as to unidentified Nearmap products having "similar functionality" to named accused products (inconsistent with D. Utah Local Patent Rules 2.3/3.1), and denied the Roof Geometry tool portion without prejudice. This was a meaningful narrowing of the accused-product universe.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.125462/gov.uscourts.utd.125462.298.0.pdf

2023-06 — Dkt. 311: sealing order on motions to seal briefing re EagleView's motion to amend final infringement contentions — the venue for the CoreLogic SkyMeasure accusation fight.

2023 (post-amendment) — Third Amended Patent Case Scheduling Order (Dkt. 322) reopened fact discovery and set: initial contentions for '648/'657 and final contentions for '436/'840/'376 (2023-08-11); Nearmap's contentions including for the newly-accused CoreLogic SkyMeasure product (2023-08-25); final infringement contentions for '648/'657 (2023-10-04); "Final date to seek stay pending post-grant proceedings in the Patent Office as to the new asserted patents" (2023-10-04); close of pre-Markman fact discovery (2023-12-15); opening claim construction/dispositive motions (2023-12-20). The explicit stay deadline confirms the court was managing the case in the shadow of the PTAB.

~2023–2024 — Nearmap's discovery motion re OpenSolar/CoreLogic agreements (Dkt. 350), and Dkt. 447 sealing order. Nearmap sought EagleView's OpenSolar and CoreLogic agreements and negotiation documents — a damages/licensing-value and secondary-considerations play. The court granted the motions to seal in part, refusing to seal the motion/opposition text but permitting sealing of third-party agreement terms and Newton's AEO infringement-contentions excerpts.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/2:2021cv00283/[125462/447](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=125462-0447)/

2024-03-28 — Dkt. 416: Count 13 ('648 patent) dismissed under § 101. Judge Stewart granted Nearmap's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, concluding the '648 claims (storing/aggregating data items tied to geographic-location and time identifiers, querying and retrieving them) recite abstract data-manipulation steps without a technological advance; the court distinguished Enfish and likened the claims to TLI Communications. This knocked one patent out of the case and was a second § 101 win for Nearmap (after losing the first in 2021).
https://trellis.law/opinion/district/eagle-view-technologies-v-nearmap-us/383369342; https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/2:2021cv00283/[125462/416](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=125462-0416)/0.pdf

2025-03-31 — Dkt. 463: Markman order (no merits constructions). The court granted in part the parties' joint motion to set a claim construction hearing, noting 13 asserted patents and eight disputed terms for argument: "roof report/roof estimate report"; "aerial image(s)/aerial images file(s)"; "oblique image(s)"; "calibrating/calibrate/calibrated, using calibration information"; "three-dimensional model/3D model"; "primary oblique image including overlapping data"; "the [first and second/plurality of] aerial images … taken independent[ly] of each other"; and "oblique aerial image(s)." A three-hour hearing was set for 2025-05-07, Nearmap arguing first, with the technology tutorial submitted in writing under LPR 4.5. Earlier briefing is at Dkts. 244, 245, 249, 250 and supplemental briefing at Dkts. 397, 404, 420, 421.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/2:2021cv00283/[125462/463](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=125462-0463)/

~2025-04/05 — Dkt. 465: motion to consolidate Markman hearings with the GAF case (2:22-cv-00215), on the ground that the same patents and overlapping terms are at issue and a single hearing would avoid inconsistent constructions.

2025-08-25 — Case stayed / administratively closed. A secondary machine-generated case summary (PatSnap) reports the D. Utah action ran 1,574 days from 2021-05-04 and was closed on 2025-08-25 with the disposition "case stayed pending completion of the PTAB/Federal Circuit proceedings" (administrative closure). That date is arithmetically consistent (1,574 days = 2021-05-04 → 2025-08-25), but I could not confirm it against the docket itself — treat as medium confidence. Notably, my review surfaced no written merits claim-construction order ever issuing, which would fit a stay entered before a Markman ruling.
https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/articles/eagle-view-v-nearmap-patent-stay-ptab-2025/

2026-05-28/29 — Settlement and end of the case. Law360 reported on 2026-05-28 ("Nearmap, Eagleview Reach Roof Measurement Patent Deal") that EagleView settled its years-long Utah infringement claims against Nearmap. EagleView's press release (2026-05-29) states the parties reached a mutually acceptable resolution of the D. Utah litigation pending since 2021, that the agreement resolves all pending disputes between the companies, and that terms are confidential; it quotes Eagleview CEO Piers Dormeyer and Nearmap CEO Andy Watt. No public judgment, verdict, or fee award.
https://www.eagleview.com/es/press-releases/eagleview-and-nearmap-reach-settlement-in-patent-dispute/

Trial / JMOL / new trial / fees: none. The case never reached trial, so there was no verdict, no JMOL or Rule 59 motion, and no § 285 fee motion. The only "dispositive" court rulings of substance were the two § 101 orders (2021-11-15 and 2024-03-28) and the pleading/discovery orders.

---

Part II — Parallel PTAB proceedings

Key IPR2022-01009 details. The Board instituted over EagleView's § 314(a)/Fintiv argument, reasoning that the district court trial would likely occur after the FWD and that the litigation was at a relatively early stage (infringement/invalidity contentions recently exchanged, no Markman hearing), and noting the district court's stay-request deadline had passed. The institution decision construed "pitch" to encompass "pitch" and "slope," and "oblique perspective view" broadly. In the FWD the Board rejected EagleView's calibration/aerial images arguments and found the combination sufficient. Notably, the Board and Federal Circuit both treated calculate/determine as not importing an accuracy requirement.

Federal Circuit — 2026-02-03. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., Nos. 2024-1488, 2024-1549 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2026) (nonprecedential; Moore, C.J., Chen and Stark, JJ.; Chen, J., authoring) — AFFIRMED both FWDs. Holdings:

• The Board's implicit construction of "calculate a pitch"/"determining a pitch" as encompassing estimates/approximations is correct — the '961 specification uses "determining" for estimations and "accurately determining" for the exceptional case, and "calculate" merely means obtaining a result via mathematical steps. The court assumed (without deciding) preservation, flagging Nearmap's forfeiture argument under In re Google Tech. Holdings, 980 F.3d 858.
• Littleworth's disclosure supported the "calculating" limitations on how a skilled artisan would read it, credited through Nearmap's expert testimony (citing Sage Prods. v. Stewart, 133 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2025)); and the petition independently relied on Middlebrook for calculating angular dimensions/pitch, so no "inherent disclosure" problem.
• Reason to combine Linder with Littleworth was adequately explained and supported by substantial evidence; the Board's finding that Linder's teachings are not limited to stereoscopic pairs was supported.

Counsel: Haynes and Boone for EagleView (Laura Vu argued; Debra Janece McComas, Gregory P. Webb, Adam L. Erickson, Angela M. Oliver); Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone (Megan Freeland Raymond argued; Jon S. Baughman, Michael F. Milea) and Fish & Richardson (Lauren Ann Degnan, Benjamin J. Christoff, Christopher Dryer, Walter K. Renner) for Nearmap.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10783305](/patent/10783305)/eagle-view-technologies-inc-v-nearmap-us-inc/; https://www.vitallaw.com/caselaw/eagle-view-technologies-inc-appellant-v-nearmap-us-inc-appellee/2f5d13df44fc44ceb48449bc47867368; https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/02/03/federal-circuit-upholds-ptab-finding-aerial-imaging-patents-obvious/; https://business.cch.com/ipld/EagleViewTechnologiesNearmapFedCir20260203.pdf

Director Review detour (IPR2022-00734). In a companion Nearmap IPR on a related EagleView roof-model patent, the Board's FWD held the claims not unpatentable, calling EagleView's objective indicia "decisive" and noting that a different petitioner had earlier challenged the same patent and lost on secondary considerations (affirmed by the Federal Circuit). On Nearmap's request, the Director granted review and vacated/remanded on 2024-02-20 (Paper 43), holding the Board failed to (i) resolve the claim-construction dispute actually argued by the parties and (ii) perform and explain a full Graham-factor weighing. On remand the Board (reported 2024-07-17) found all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious — a significant doctrinal win for Nearmap on the patentability-weight and Graham-factor issues.
https://www.finnegan.com/print/content/[410376](/patent/410376)/... ; https://www.law360.co.uk/ptab_cases/62399cb3b2c10900828481a6

Related PTAB/other history flagged for color: EagleView's earlier campaign against Xactware/Verisk (D.N.J.) generated the Verisk settlement that became the basis for Nearmap's Utah patent-misuse defense, and a prior PTAB decision sustaining claims on secondary considerations was affirmed on appeal (referenced in the IPR2022-00734 FWD and Finnegan's write-up). I have not verified the case names/citations for that earlier appeal.

---

Part III — Effect of the PTAB track on the litigation

1. Claim scope was litigated in the PTAB first. Because the district court had not reached a merits Markman ruling before the stay, the Federal Circuit's affirmance of the plain-meaning treatment of "calculate"/"determine" (and the Board's broad "pitch" and "aerial images" constructions) effectively supplied the operative claim scope for the '961/'436 family.
2. Two asserted patents were eliminated. The FWDs invalidated all challenged claims of the '961 (2023-12-14) and '436 (2024-01-09) patents — both asserted in Utah (and in the GAF case) — and those rulings became final on 2026-02-03. Combined with the 2024-03-28 § 101 dismissal of the '648 count, EagleView's asserted set steadily eroded.
3. The court built the PTAB schedule into case management (2023-10-04 cutoff to seek stays as to newly asserted patents; fact discovery tied to post-grant timing), and ultimately the action was administratively closed/stayed ~2025-08-25 pending the Federal Circuit appeals rather than tried.
4. The IPRs drove the settlement economics. With the '961 and '436 claims invalidated and affirmed, and the parallel PTAB ruling on objective indicia reversed, Nearmap's invalidity posture was strong; the May 2026 global settlement (terms confidential, all disputes resolved) ended both the Utah case and the related GAF-related strands without a damages trial or a license publicly disclosed.

---

Part IV — Present posture and confidence notes

• Disposition: The D. Utah infringement action (2:21-cv-00283) was not tried; it was stayed/administratively closed in August 2025 and settled in May 2026 with confidential terms. IPR2022-01009 terminated 2023-12-14 with a final written decision of unpatentability, affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2026-02-03; IPR2022-01090 likewise affirmed the same day.
• High confidence: dates and holdings for Dkts. 50, 267, 298, 416, 463; the FWDs (2023 WL 8651434; 2024 WL 100923); the Federal Circuit opinion of 2026-02-03; the existence and content of the May 2026 settlement/press release.
• Medium/low confidence (flag before relying): the 2025-08-25 administrative-closure date and "stayed pending PTAB/Fed. Cir." disposition (PatSnap secondary source); the full counterclaim lineup in Nearmap's answer; the identity of the patent at issue in IPR2022-00734 and the identity of any additional Nearmap IPR petitions; the names/dates of the D. Utah Markman hearing actually occurring (scheduled 2025-05-07, but I found no transcript or merits construction order); and the district-court counsel roster (PatSnap lists Gibson Dunn, Kirkland & Ellis, Wilson Sonsini and Parsons Behle for EagleView and Fish & Richardson/Groombridge Wu for Nearmap — consistent with the Federal Circuit appearance, but not verified against the docket).
• Not found / likely non-existent: any trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or attorney-fee ruling in 2:21-cv-00283.

I'll research the counsel of record for the petitioner/plaintiff, Nearmap US, Inc., in this IPR and any parallel district court litigation.

I have good initial leads. Let me pin down the specific counsel of record for Nearmap (the petitioner/plaintiff-side party) in the IPR and in the parallel Utah district court litigation.

Threshold note on party alignment

The case metadata in this prompt is the PTAB caption Nearmap US, Inc. v. EagleView Technologies, Inc. — an IPR, not a district‑court infringement suit. In this forum the party the metadata labels "plaintiff" is Nearmap US, Inc., the petitioner. In the underlying infringement action, the roles flip: Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (with Pictometry International Corp.) is plaintiff, and Nearmap is the accused defendant — Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 2:21‑cv‑00283‑TS‑DAO (D. Utah, N.D. Div., filed May 4, 2021). I've addressed Nearmap's counsel in both fora, since "plaintiff's counsel" is ambiguous here.

---

1. Nearmap US, Inc. — Petitioner in IPR2022‑01009

Lead counsel

• W. Karl Renner (Walter Karl Renner; Reg. No. 41,265) — lead counsel. Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, MN (60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200) and Washington, DC (1000 Maine Ave. SW). Long‑time Fish & Richardson PTAB principal and one of the firm's most prolific IPR lead counsel; listed as lead counsel on the parallel Nearmap IPRs against this same patent owner (e.g., IPR2022‑00734, IPR2022‑00342) and as appellee's counsel for Nearmap on the Federal Circuit appeal. (Sources: USPTO/PTAB mandatory‑notice and Director‑Review papers listing "FOR PETITIONER … W. Karl Renner … FISH & RICHARDSON P.C."; Federal Circuit docket listing Renner as Nearmap's counsel.)

Backup / additional counsel

The verbatim "FOR PETITIONER" line I could retrieve is from the sibling Nearmap IPR against the same patent owner (IPR2022‑00734, U.S. 9,135,737), where Fish & Richardson listed:

• Thomas Rozylowicz — Fish & Richardson (Washington, DC)
• Daniel D. Smith — Fish & Richardson (Washington, DC)
• Patrick Darno — Fish & Richardson (Washington, DC)
• Patrick Bisenius — Fish & Richardson (Washington, DC) — argued the "aerial images" construction issue on the joint IPR2022‑01009/01090 hearing
• Yao Wang — Fish & Richardson
• Craig Deutsch — Fish & Richardson

All have substantial PTAB/AIA‑trial practices at Fish & Richardson's Washington, DC office. Caveat: the docket snippets I retrieved show this exact six‑attorney block for IPR2022‑00734, not a cleanly captured counsel block for IPR2022‑01009 itself; the two cases were consolidated for hearing (IPR2022‑01009 / IPR2022‑01090, same panel — Judges Cass and Giannetti), and the same Fish & Richardson team appears on the Nearmap‑side papers in both. I could not pull the IPR2022‑01009 Notice of Filing Date/counsel page verbatim, so treat the per‑case backup roster as highly likely but not literally confirmed for 01009.

*On appeal (Fed. Cir., Eagle View Techs., Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., affirming Feb. 3, 2026)*

• Walter Karl Renner appears on the Federal Circuit docket as appellee Nearmap's attorney; Fish & Richardson colleagues Lauren A. Degnan, Benjamin Joseph Christoff, and Christopher Dryer are on the firm's Nearmap‑side appellate team in the related IPR2022‑00735 appeal (Fed. Cir. No. 2024‑1763).

---

2. Nearmap US, Inc. — Defendant in the parallel D. Utah infringement action (2:21‑cv‑00283)

Coordination on the defense side is handled by multiple firms (secondary‑source reporting; no attorney names verified):

• Fish & Richardson P.C. — Nearmap's PTAB/appellate counsel of record, above.
• Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
• Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP
• Hatch Law Group PC

I could not verify individual named attorneys, office locations, or lead‑counsel designations for these firms in the Utah docket from the sources retrieved — the district‑court filings I located (e.g., Docs. 465–466) show plaintiff's counsel (Parsons Behle & Latimer; Gibson Dunn; Kirkland & Ellis), not defendant's. That limitation is stated rather than filled with guesses.

---

What is not verified

• No sealed‑filing issue was identified for IPR2022‑01009; the PTAB record is public. The gap is simply that I retrieved the counsel block for the companion IPR rather than a standalone 01009 block.
• Names of the District of Utah defense team for Nearmap are unconfirmed.
• I did not locate a PTAB power‑of‑attorney or updated mandatory notice for 01009 confirming whether any 01009‑specific additions/substitutions occurred after institution.

Bottom line: Lead counsel for Nearmap in IPR2022‑01009 is W. Karl Renner of Fish & Richardson P.C. (Minneapolis/DC), supported by the Fish & Richardson PTAB team (Rozylowicz, Smith, Darno, Bisenius, Wang, Deutsch; Degnan, Christoff, and Dryer on appeal).

I'll research the counsel of record. Note that this docket is a PTAB inter partes review, so the "defendant" side is the Patent Owner, EagleView Technologies. Let me verify and pull the appearances.

I have the PTAB side. Now let me identify the specific attorneys and firms, plus the parallel district court action.

Let me pull the actual PTAB decisions and filings for the exact counsel listings.

Threshold point on the framing

This docket — IPR2022-01009 — is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court infringement suit. There is no "defendant"; the defending party is the Patent Owner, EagleView Technologies, Inc. (Petitioner Nearmap US, Inc. is the plaintiff-side party). There is a parallel district court infringement action between these same companies (see §4 below), and in that case the defendant-side party is Nearmap — so I've covered both sides below so you can use whichever you meant. Where I could not verify a name from a primary source, I say so explicitly.

---

1. Patent Owner / defendant-side of record: EagleView Technologies, Inc.

Lead counsel of record (PTAB):

Other EagleView-side counsel (Haynes Boone team) — role descriptions and confidence noted:

⚠️ Sourcing caveat: The Webb/McComas/Bowser/Oliver/Erickson/Vu roster comes from Haynes Boone's Oct. 15, 2024 press release, which expressly describes two different IPRs (U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,671,648 and 9,182,657, both denied institution in October 2024) — not IPR2022-01009. Their involvement in 01009 is a reasonable inference from the firm's role as EagleView's PTAB counsel, but I could not retrieve the final written decision's caption block (which lists 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 counsel) directly, so treat that roster as probable, not confirmed for 01009 specifically. I also could not verify the names of EagleView's Federal Circuit counsel on appeal (No. 2024-1488) — do not assume the same team argued the appeal.

In-house: No EagleView in-house counsel is identified in any public filing I found.

---

2. Petitioner side: Nearmap US, Inc. (Fish & Richardson)

Relevant because (a) they are the adversary of record in 01009, and (b) they are the defendant in the parallel district court case.

---

3. Local counsel

Not applicable. The PTAB does not require or typically see "local counsel" appearances, and none appears in this proceeding. (For contrast, in the older New Jersey EagleView v. Xactware/Verisk litigation, Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP (Newark) served as local counsel with Kirkland & Ellis as lead — a different case and different parties, cited only to show the pattern.)

---

4. The parallel district court case (where roles are reversed)

Nearmap US, Inc. v. EagleView Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp., No. 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO (D. Utah) — referenced repeatedly in the PTAB record as a related matter. There EagleView (and Pictometry) are the plaintiffs and Nearmap is the defendant, so if your question was aimed at the infringement action rather than the IPR, the counsel of record you want is Fish & Richardson (Renner/Darno team, per the same engagement lists showing Fish & Richardson as the firm representing Nearmap in 2:21-cv-00283). I have not independently verified Utah local counsel or the full appearance list in that case — flag if you need it.

Also note the related PTAB family: IPR2022-00734 (Pat. 9,135,737, EagleView), IPR2022-00735 (Pictometry), IPR2022-01090 ('436 patent, heard jointly with 01009), and the later IPRs on the '648 and '657 patents.

---

5. Outcome context for the EagleView-side team

• IPR2022-01009 FWD, Dec. 14, 2023 (Paper cited as 2023 WL 8651434): claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29 of the '961 patent held unpatentable as obvious. Panel: APJs Russell E. Cass (opinion author), Thomas L. Giannetti, Garth D. Baer.
• Federal Circuit No. 2024-1488, Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc. — affirmed (per case metadata, Feb. 3, 2026). The opinion rejected EagleView's arguments that "calculate"/"determine" require particular accuracy, upheld the Board's reading of the petition as relying on Littleworth (plus Middlebrook, and Linder for the stereo-imaging combination), and noted Nearmap's forfeiture argument.
• By contrast, the Haynes Boone team's wins for EagleView were the Oct. 9–10, 2024 denials of institution on the '648 and '657 patents — i.e., the EagleView side has both wins (institution denials, plus the Director-review remand in IPR2022-00734) and losses (01009) in this campaign.

---

Bottom line

For IPR2022-01009, the defendant-side (Patent Owner EagleView Technologies, Inc.) counsel of record is Kyle L. Howard of Haynes and Boone, LLP (Dallas–North), per the PTAB counsel aggregation, with the Haynes Boone team of Greg Webb (team lead), Debbie McComas, Jonathan Bowser, Angela Oliver, Adam Erickson, and Laura Vu identified by the firm as its EagleView PTAB team — though the firm's own release ties that roster to the 2024 '648/'657 IPRs rather than to 01009, so the 01009-specific roster should be confirmed against the Paper 1/Paper 7 mandatory notices and the FWD caption on PTAB's P-TACTS system. Petitioner Nearmap is represented by Fish & Richardson (W. Karl Renner, lead; Patrick Darno argued), and that same team appears to represent Nearmap as the defendant in the parallel D. Utah action, No. 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO.